J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) Dharam Pal has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence of six months' R.I. Under Sec. 411 IPC.
(2.) For the purpose of this revision the following facts may be taken as finally proved: (1) that on 20 -9 -1964, PW 2 Nathhu Ram after pouching his field tied his two bullocks with a string round their necks and left them to go home. (2) that sometime thereafter he also left for his house and en route met the Applicant who stopped him and talked with him for about 20 or 25 minutes, (3) that when PW 2 Nathhu Ram reached home he did not find his bullocks there, (4) that on 1 -10 -1965 one Banney, met PW 2 Nathhu Ram and told him that if he would pay him Rs. 100/ - he would trace out his bullocks, (5) that PW 2 Nathhu Ram agreed to pay Rs. 50/ - only and on Banney agreeing, he (PW 2) borrowed that sum from one Purshottam and gave it to Banney, and (6) that at 4 a.m. on 9 -10 -1965, Banney took PW 2 Nathhu Ram to the canal culvert and on reaching there be called the Applicant and the latter came out of a Bajra field with the bullocks and gave them to PW 2 Nathhu Ram. On these findings the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced Banney Under Sec. 215 IPC and the Applicant Under Sec. 379 IPC. Both the convicted persons appealed to the learned Sessions Judge. The latter upheld the conviction of Banney but reduced the sentence. We are not concerned in this revision with Banney. So far as the Applicant is concerned, his conviction was altered on appeal from one Under Sec. 379 IPC to one Under Sec. 411 IPC and the sentence was reduced from one year's R.I. to six months' Rule I. Hence this revision.
(3.) On behalf of the Applicant his learned Counsel Sri P.N. Misra contended that as there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove that the bullocks were stolen, the Applicant could not be convicted Under Sec. 411 IPC. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that this contention is well -founded.;